I am very skeptical of claims revolving around thermal imaging. Do you mind if I ask what qualifications you have?Originally Posted by Brett
Then you are out of touch.
Now that is really is bullshit, and serves to demonstrate an incredibly superficial understanding of the industry and its governance.
Then your eyes have either been disconnected or you are in denial ( I rather think the latter given your previous role). Fibre cement is a crap product for wall cladding. It should only be used for soffits.
All perfectly fine up to the last sentence. The product does fail regularly. I know this for a fact as I have investigated multiple WHRS claims and seen it with my own eyes.
JH isn't paying out millions of dollars each year in confidential settlements out of the goodness of their hearts (they have none)
Yes use H3.2 treated timber to be sure it will last, as contrary to popular misconception we never have nor never will build homes that don't leak.
Yes nail and staple holes do allow moisture ingress which can result in decay if in sufficient quantities and/or timber is untreated. The flashing tape will seal around the fixing (in most instances) but not so the wrap. The cladding on a cavity system is a rain screen (sheds the water) and some moisture will penetrate through it at junctions. However, If the cavity system is installed correctly there are few bridging points that allow the water to transfer across the cavity, so the risk of moisture entering at fixings is greatly reduced (from direct fixed) Cavities are a good thing.
Gold there. Mandatory introduction of building wraps then insulation started the change, then allowing allowing the use of untreated framing. Fuckwits.
No! That is the 'Crap'. Houses always have leaked and always will. The timber used, while untreated was more durable (as most was native). Also as stated earlier by a wiser head, the walls could dry out very quickly because they were draughty as all get out. BTW You can't use chem free anywhere now.
Not so. They are there to cover the owners arse. The builders arse is rarely covered as it is usually long gone or too boney to be worth covering. Cavities are highly recommended as they are the most effective method of preventing water from entering the wall framing (given that wall cladding is not effectively and consistently waterproof) and they allow air circulation to dry out water that does enter into the cavity.
You only say that because you don't understand what it is there for. With the advent of wraps, insulation and sealed cladding systems the air pressure difference between inside and outside of buildings becomes more pronounced. Surface water passing over risk junctions like window edges is readily sucked in at the these junctions (lacking air seals) as the pressure differential is balanced by air moving through those unsealed junctions. The idea is to stop the airflow that is sucking the water in. The flashing tapes and wrap should extend all the way back into and past the inside face of the trimmers and be stapled in place there (rather than within the trimmed opening where water might penetrate through fixings. The air seal (formed at the inside face of the wall framing) prevents the moisture from entering past that point.
G4 is interior ventilation and has nothing to do with concrete floors. E1 is the clause governing floor levels. Those given in NZBC E1/AS1 and NZS3604 are the same (as are those in E2/AS1) and most other relevant publications. Whilst they are recommended, they are not mandatory. But your comment re cladding clearance is not incorrect (in most situations)
Unfortunately that is incorrect. I have shut down several jobs over the last few years due to grossly defective workmanship. Many/most builders still don't understand the basic mechanics of water entry into buildings and create defects in areas where plan details are lacking. Even more designers fit into the same category.
The removal of timber treatment was and is the single biggest factor determining the cost and extent of remediation work that is required. Untreated framing is what is driving the complete removal of wall cladding and replacement with new cladding on cavity systems. I estimate that between 60 to 70% of cost relates back to this single failure.
If framing treatment had been retained we would not have a leaky building disaster to deal with as leaks could have been fixed as targeted repairs (like in the good old days)
As for the OP...
I was rather unexcited by the expose on matters that I have been well aware of and have been discouraged from discussing dating right back to 2002 when I first expressed my views on the parties and other causative factors responsible (very few new discoveries since).
Conspicuous in their absence were discussion re;
Cladding manufacturers (Oh where to start?).
BRANZ..... They got off very lightly.
Sealant manufacturers (and the like) who supply cartridges of sealant by the hundreds of thousands without out any evidence of corresponding volumes of product primers which are applicable in approx 80 to 90% of the sealant applications.
Contributory negligence in cases of significant owner failures to carry out advised preventative maintenance (particularly by Ostrich like body corps)
Negligence of buyers who either didn't get a qualified building surveyor to do a PROPER pre purchase inspection of their most expensive purchase.
The fact that (IMO) the lions share of builders negligence lies at the feet of the owner builders who had no clue as to the hidden costs in all the details that weren't shown on their $1000 set of plans and who, though pushing the envelope of their finances right at the start, decided (in their infinite wisdom) that they would save tens of thousand$ by using unqualified labour only contractors and cheap (uncontrolled) subbies who had priced poorly scoped (by the ignorant) contracts which frequently resulted in under lapping responsibilities and countless un-budgeted requirements. As I recall, these people couldn't afford to finish their builds and would knowingly cut corners. In my experience I estimate more than half of the houses built between the mid eighties and beyond 2000 were built by owner builders. Where are they now?
The market were provided the level of competence that they demanded of the industry. Every house buyer shares in that responsibility.
If Councils and Certifiers failed in their performance requirements with respect to the Building Act, what of the failure of the BIA in respect to its auditing responsibilities.
There really is a whole lot more to it than has been revealed to the public so far.
Frankly, it's all a sham propelled and steered by politics and it ain't ever going to get fixed even half properly.
I am a qualified WHRS assessor, building surveyor, expert witness (ex builder and construction manager) and have assessed and reported on multiple weathertightness claims. I also process building consent applications for a number of councils and provide overflow inspection services to ACC when I'm not engaged by insurance companies to investigate/report/give evidence on construction related claims (not all leakers)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks